If life is a positive and death is a negative…........

Byron, this doesn’t address the core of the problem- that the gold standard negative-to-be-disproven that you, as far as i can tell, are operating on ...

You’ll find no basis to suggest I’m operating under any such standard in what I’ve written. You seem to be extrapolating a little too freely on that point. All you have to base it on is that I’m calling you on what appear to be your overly free extrapolations about the nature of death.

Byron

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel

Zero is still a number, it’s not a negative. If negative experiences were negative then wouldn’t they be represented by -1? Is there a reason why it couldn’t be -1?

Zero is neither positive or negative. It is the absence of anything. In order for an experience to have a non-zero value, there first has to be an experience. But “it” (I assume you mean death, the state of being dead) is the absence of any experience.

meloncolin - 12 April 2008 07:52 AM

If I were making a claim to what happens after death, then I’d agree with you but I’m not, so I don’t.

You’re claiming that something happens (or might happen) after death. But nothing does. Why is that so hard to accept? It reminds me of the idea that life must have meaning. It may be comforting to think it, but wishful thinking doesn’t make it so.

meloncolin - 12 April 2008 07:52 AM

It’s obvious why you would regard my comments as faith. Either you haven’t realized, or you disagree, that the science you’ve banked your position on regarding the nature of perception actually has a lot of good questions hanging over it, questions that leave many scientists unconvinced for good reasons. Your certainty is based on an unproven theory.

Yes, yes. I’ve heard that same argument from the biblical literalists. There are an amazing number of sources dedicated to proving that evolution is impossible, or to debunking all the science that shows the world is more than 6,000 years old, blah blah blah. I’m sure there are plenty of sources that prove consciousness comes from the Ether instead of our heads and continues on after we do. How exactly does that work, anyway? There must be a theory of how “consciousness” can exist sans brain cells? I’ll bet Microsoft is studying that phenomenon. Their next version of Windows won’t need hardware to run.

Maybe you think that’s tangential to the original post, but I disagree. Before I buy a non-zero value for non-existence, I’ll have to be convinced that experience is possible in a state of non-existence.

meloncolin - 12 April 2008 07:52 AM

Like I said, that ‘fact’ is far from conclusive.

If it makes you feel better to believe in experience after death, then drive on. Why should you be held to a higher standard than the Christians or the Muslims or the Scientologists? Why should you be taken any more seriously than them, or ouigee boards or magic eight-balls? I don’t see the difference.

Do-gooding is like treating hemophilia. The real cure is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death—before they breed more hemophiliacs. - Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

If it makes you feel better to believe in experience after death, then drive on.

Can’t really blame him/her there. I’d much rather deal with “death” as a transition kind of deal too. I just don’t seem to have the option of slacking off on my standards of evidence and reasoning, even for such high stakes personal sensibilities.

Byron

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel